SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 211285. June 4, 2014.]

URSULA OCOPIO MACAM, petitioner, vs. CESAR MACAM, JEREMY MACAM AND REYNALDO MACAM, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 04 June 2014 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 211285 (Ursula Ocopio Macam, petitioner v. Cesar Macam, Jeremy Macam and Reynaldo Macam, respondents)

The present controversy stemmed from a complaint 1 for Recovery of Possession of Personal Property/Income of Business filed by
petitioner Ursula Ocopio Macam (Ursula) against respondents Cesar Macam (Cesar), Jeremy Macam (Jeremy) and Reynaldo Macam
(Reynaldo) before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Manila on 31 March 2009.

In her complaint, Ursula alleged that she and Jimmy Macam (Jimmy), a brother of respondents, were married in 1994. They established
their conjugal home in one of the rooms of the house co-owned by her husband and respondents. To earn a living, Ursula and her
husband put up an ice delivery business, in the course of which, they were able to acquire two vehicles: an Isuzu Jeepney and an Isuzu
Elf. 2

Jimmy died in 2006, but Ursula continued to live in their conjugal home and to operate the ice business. However, her relationship with
respondents became very unpleasant that it reached a point where she was forced to file separate complaints for robbery and grave
threats against respondents and their sister for forcing her at gunpoint to reveal the number combination of her vault and for taking her
money and jewelry. After that incident, respondents padlocked her room and prevented her from entering it and going back to the
house. They also withheld her personal belongings consisting of clothes, shoes, appliances and furniture, including the two Isuzu motor
vehicles, and took over the operation of the ice plant business, appropriating the profits for themselves. The failure of respondents to
return her personal properties despite repeated verbal demands compelled Ursula to file the case for recovery of possession. 3

In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, respondents claimed that before Jimmy married Ursula, he was already married to a
certain Evangeline Lumbad (Evangeline), as shown by a certification from the National Statistics Office. However, in 1976, or after two
years of living together, Jimmy separated from Evangeline. He met Ursula when the latter, who is a niece of the wife of respondent
Reynaldo stayed in their house. According to respondents, the house where they are staying at belonged to their mother under an
original certificate of title; hence, it can never be the conjugal home of Ursula and Jimmy. In fact, it was only in 1998 when respondents
acquired the property after their mother executed a deed of absolute sale in their favor. Nevertheless, respondents Cesar and Reynaldo
had been residing therein as far back as 1975. 4

Together with his brothers Josefino and Jimmy, Cesar operated an ice delivery business in the said family home. Through their efforts,
they were able to acquire the two motor vehicles being claimed by Ursula, which were both registered in the name of Jimmy. Ursula
never contributed to the ice business as it was their deceased brother who bought all the properties of the couple without any
participation from Ursula who is unemployed. Upon the death of Jimmy, Ursula took over the ice plant business without apprising
respondents of its status or informing them of the properties left by Jimmy. As a result, they and their sister examined the remaining
properties of their deceased brother and eventually informed Ursula that Jeremy will take over the ice business and Ursula will simply
receive a daily stipend of P1,000.00. Displeased with the proposal, Ursula left the residence. 5 HSaCcE

The MeTC ruled in favor of Ursula, holding that in an action for recovery of personal property, the court has no jurisdiction to determine
the validity of Ursula's marriage to her deceased husband. It declared, however, that even assuming that the marriage of Ursula to
Jimmy was bigamous, the same is presumed to be valid until a court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise. Being the legal
spouse and only heir, it declared Ursula entitled to all the properties left by her deceased husband. 6

On appeal, the RTC reversed and set aside the foregoing Decision, adjudging to respondents the properties left by Jimmy. It held that
the marriage of Ursula and Jimmy was bigamous; hence, the property relation governing their marriage is the regime of co-ownership
pursuant to Article 148 of the Family Code. The RTC further ruled that Ursula was in bad faith when she married Jimmy because she
had knowledge of the latter's previous marriage. Thus, in the absence of common children with her husband, Ursula's share in the co-
ownership was forfeited in favor of respondents, being the next of kin of the deceased. 7

Ursula appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the Decision of the RTC with the modification that the grant of moral and
exemplary damages in favor of respondents was deleted, there being nothing in the records supporting the award.

Issues
In the instant appeal, Ursula claimed that the CA erred in affirming the finding of the RTC that:

1. the marriage between Ursula and Jimmy was bigamous as the RTC had no jurisdiction to rule on the same, the present action being
one for recovery of possession;

2. Ursula's share in her co-ownership with Jimmy is forfeited on account of her bad faith in marrying Jimmy, having had knowledge of
his validly existing marriage to Evangeline; and
3. respondents are the surviving heirs of Jimmy.

The Ruling of the Court

The validity of a void marriage
may be collaterally attacked
In a void marriage, it is as though no marriage had taken place; thus, it cannot be the source of any right. Consequently, any party may
attack the marriage, directly or collaterally. A void marriage may be questioned even beyond the lifetime of the parties to the marriage.
8

Citing the case of Nial v. Bayadog, 9 this Court held in De Castro v. Assidao-De Castro: 10

However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other
purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of
property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted
to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in
the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry.
The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such
final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage. 11 SEACTH

Indeed, a void marriage may be impugned either: (1) directly, by filing an action attacking the validity thereof; or (2) collaterally, in a suit
instituted not to specifically question the same, but where the determination of the issue of its validity is essential to the resolution of the
controversy, as in the case at bar. 12 As correctly held by the CA:

Since the issue raised in this petition involves a question of who between petitioner and respondents are entitled to the properties left
by Jimmy, the RTC has therefore jurisdiction to rule upon the validity of petitioner's marriage with Jimmy as the same is determinative of
the resolution of the issue at hand. 13

Nonetheless, it is still necessary that "evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds
rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity." 14

In the case at bar, the existence of a valid marriage between Jimmy and Evangeline at the time Ursula and Jimmy were married was
sufficiently shown by the following documents:

1. Certification issued by the National Statistics Office declaring that Jimmy and Evangeline were married in the city of Manila on 25
May 1974; 15 and

2. Decision dated 4 September 2002 of the RTC, Branch 37, Manila, declaring, upon the petition of Jimmy, the presumptive death of
Evangeline for purposes of re-marriage of Jimmy. 16

Anent the latter document, it must be emphasized that Ursula and Jimmy were married on 15 June 1994, or eight (8) years BEFORE
Evangeline was declared presumptively dead. Clearly, the marriage of Jimmy and Evangeline was still subsisting at the time Ursula and
Jimmy were married. Further, the Decision of the RTC of Manila is also a recognition of the validity of the marriage between Jimmy and
Evangeline.

Based on the foregoing, the RTC had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between Ursula and Jimmy. The CA was,
therefore, correct in affirming the Decision of the RTC on this point.

Whether or not petitioner in bad faith

immaterial since she has no actual
contribution to the business or
acquisition of properties
Pursuant to Article 148 of the Family Code, in cases where parties living together have a legal impediment to marry each other, such as
in this instance where the marriage of Ursula and Jimmy is bigamous, the property regime governing their union is that of a co-
ownership. Thus:

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their
actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The
same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

As correctly held by the CA, however, in order for co-ownership to apply, there must be evidence of actual joint contribution made by
the parties. Quoting Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 17 the CA declared:

A reading of Article 148 readily shows that there must be proof of "actual joint contribution" by both the live-in partners before the
property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their contribution. The presumption of equality of contribution arises only in the
absence of proof of their proportionate contributions, subject to the condition that actual joint contribution is proven first. Simply put,
proof of actual contribution by both parties is required, otherwise there is no co-ownership and no presumption of equal sharing.
Petitioners failed to show proof of actual contribution by Pacita in the acquisition of Lot No. 152. In short, petitioners failed to prove that
Pacita bought Lot No. 152 with her own money, or that she actually contributed her own money to acquire it. 18 (Emphasis supplied)

The CA continued:

We have meticulously scanned the records for proofs that petitioner made actual contribution in the acquisition of the assailed
properties but lamentably we found none. Aside from petitioner's anemic allegations that she is a co-owner of the subject motor
vehicles and ice delivery business she failed to submit evidence, such as receipts showing that she shared in the purchase of the said
vehicle or presented a contract reflecting that she contributed to the capital of the ice business. Neither did she even prove her financial
capacity to acquire these properties or engage in a trade or industry. In stark contrast, respondents showed her financial inadequacy by
alleging, which she did not dispute, that she was unemployed and completely dependent on her husband for subsistence. Hence, for
failure of petitioner to prove actual contributions in the acquisition of the properties in question, the same therefore solely became the
property of Jimmy. Further, it was not established that Jimmy has children nor [that] his ascendants were still alive. Therefore, pursuant
to Article 1003 of the New Civil Code, his next of kin are his surviving collateral relative, the herein respondents. Verily, respondents are
entitled to lay claim on the disputed properties and business establishment of the deceased. 19 EcTCAD

Indeed, aside from her bare allegation of co-ownership, Ursula had not presented any proof that would make the properties in question
fall within the purview of Article 148 of the Family Code. Absent any evidence that she made actual contribution to the business or in
the acquisition of the properties she claims, this Court cannot declare Ursula entitled thereto.

Respondents are not the legal heirs

of Jimmy, there being a surviving
spouse
Curiously, attached to the records of this case is a "Salaysay ng Muling Pagpapakita" 20 or Affidavit of Re-Appearance in Accordance
with Article 42 of the Family Code 21 executed by Evangeline, the legal wife of Jimmy, on 18 May 2009. The affidavit states, among
others, that when she left Jimmy in 1976, she lived in the house of her family at 740 Int. 2, Del Pan, Manila, 22 which is not too far from
the Macam residence located at No. 240 C. M. Recto, Binondo, Manila. 23 The affidavit further states that from the time she left the
Macam residence until Jimmy's death, the latter knew that she was living in her family's house in the aforementioned address, as they
had numerous chance encounters since they separated, either on the streets or in the public market where she was a fish vendor.
There is thus no truth to the allegations of Jimmy in his petition for the declaration of her presumptive death that she had been missing
for a long time and had no communication with him. To substantiate the allegations in her affidavit, she submitted the following
documents:

1. Certification from the Baranggay Chairman proving her place of residence;

2. Her voter's registration application for the national elections of 1989;

3. Police clearance dated 6 March 1989;

4. Copies of her Philippine passport;

5. The respective affidavits of Cesar Macam, brother of Jimmy and Teresita Orjencio, affiant's sister stating that since their separation,
Jimmy was aware that she is still alive since there were times when they would see each other whenever affiant would pass in front of
the Macam residence. 24

Article 1003 of the Civil Code provides that "if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or a surviving spouse, the
collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate of the deceased." There being a surviving spouse, respondents are clearly not
entitled to the properties left behind by Jimmy.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 14 June 2013
affirming the Order of the Regional Trial Court of Manila which granted the counter-claim of respondents thereby entitling them to the
properties left behind by Jimmy Macam is hereby SET ASIDE. The said Decision, as well as the Resolution of the Court of Appeals
dated 18 February 2014 are AFFIRMED in all other respects.

SO ORDERED.

||| (Macam v. Macam, G.R. No. 211285 (Notice), [June 4, 2014])